Stephenson v. Stephenson
795 N.W.2d 357
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Married in 1983; two children now adults; parties separated in 2005 and divorced in 2008.
- 1994 divorce judgment awarded Sharrie 25% of Daniel’s DOD pension; they remarried in 1997 and Sharrie did not receive payment.
- 2009–2010 district court proceedings adopted the 1994 judgment, awarded Sharrie a $90,000 equity adjustment for retirement assets, and ordered $3,000 monthly spousal support and $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Court valued Daniel’s retirement assets at about $173,731.50; Sharrie received approx. $101,203 in retirement assets while Daniel received about $109,206 in retirement assets plus pensions.
- On remand the court was to equitably distribute the entire marital estate, noted a substantial disparity in retirement asset division, and omitted a Honda 4x4 recreational vehicle from either party.
- Spousal support and attorney’s fees were affirmed, but the property division was reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly valued and divided retirement assets. | Sharrie argues the retirement value is clearly erroneous and division inequitable. | Daniel contends values and distribution were proper under Ruff-Fischer guidelines. | Remanded for proper valuation and equitable distribution. |
| Whether adopting the 1994 judgment and awarding 25% of the DOD pension remains permissible. | Sharrie claims res judicata applies; 1994 division should control. | Remarriage made all assets marital; prior judgment not controlling. | Court erred by adopting 1994 judgment; must distribute based on current marriage. |
| Whether spousal support award was supported by Ruff-Fischer factors. | Sharrie contends the award undercompensates the disadvantaged spouse. | Daniel argues the award reflects need and ability to pay. | Support affirmed; remand possible reconsideration with updated property division. |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was appropriate. | Sharrie argues her fees exceed $35,000 and were warranted by need. | Daniel contends the award balanced need and ability to pay. | No abuse of discretion; fees affirmed. |
| Whether the overall property division was equitable. | Sharrie asserts substantial disparity in asset division. | Daniel asserts the distribution was appropriate given earnings and debts. | Disposition reversed and remanded for an equitable, complete distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorenz v. Lorenz, 2007 ND 49 (ND 2007) (establishes Ruff-Fischer framework and need for explanation of factors)
- Paulson v. Paulson, 2010 ND 100 (ND 2010) (clarifies valuation and distribution standards for pensions)
- Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775 (ND 1952) (Ruff-Fischer guidelines for equitable distribution)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (ND 1966) (historical Ruff-Fischer lineage in ND property division)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 ND 176 (ND 1998) (retirement assets become marital property upon remarriage)
- Hitz v. Hitz, 2008 ND 58 (ND 2008) (includes guidance on inclusion of all property in division)